Date of Decision: May 17, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Architecture and Urbanism
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture and Urbanism
Nationality: Argentina
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, holding a master’s degree in architecture and urbanism and a bachelor’s degree in the same field. She also had a second master’s degree in progress and had been a licensed architect since 2011.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance of Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not sufficiently articulate a clear proposed endeavor with national importance. Her descriptions varied between providing affordable housing and improving education to specializing in healthcare architecture and disaster-resilient architecture.
Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor: Although the petitioner provided support letters evidencing her skills and experience, the lack of a consistent and clear proposed endeavor made it difficult to establish that she was well-positioned to advance it.
Benefit to the United States: The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers beyond her immediate clientele.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided varying descriptions of her proposed endeavor, including:
Providing affordable housing and improving education through art and design.
Specializing in healthcare architecture to make hospitals more functional and resilient.
Working on hurricane-resistant structures to reduce economic losses due to natural disasters in Florida.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavors had potential merit in healthcare and disaster-resilient architecture. However, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that her work would have a broad impact beyond her immediate clients, which is a requirement for national importance under the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner included support letters and an analysis impact report outlining her objectives, such as assisting in planning healthcare facilities, contributing to STEAM expansion, and providing consulting on healthcare architecture.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor changed from the initial petition to the response to the RFE, which created ambiguity regarding her actual focus and plans. This inconsistency undermined her argument for the national importance of her work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Provided support for her skills and experience but did not clearly establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Business Plan:
Lacked clarity and consistency in describing her specific focus and the broader impact of her work.
Advisory Letter:
Included general support for her qualifications but did not provide concrete evidence of the national significance of her proposed projects.
Any other supporting documentation:
The documentation did not resolve the ambiguities in her proposed endeavor or demonstrate significant economic benefits or job creation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which requires demonstrating that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. The inconsistency in describing her proposed endeavor and the lack of clear evidence of its broader impact led to the denial of the appeal.
